112787: Question from a Christian about the scholars' differences in interpretation of the Holy Qur'aan

A question from a Christian in Canada: Why do the scholars differ concerning the interpretation of the Holy Qur'aan and claim that there is only one version of the Gospel in Canada and the interpretation of it is one and there are not two views? What is your opinion? May Allah reward you with good.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

There is no
difference of opinion among the scholars with regard to the interpretation
of the entire Qur'aan. Rather they differed concerning the interpretation of
some of its verses. There is no doubt that with regard to most of the
verses, there is no difference of opinion as to their interpretation. Rather
the commentators, both early and later, and scholars are agreed on its
interpretation. This is something that is clear to everyone who reads the
Qur'aan and books of commentary. The majority of Muslims still read the
Qur'aan and listen to its verses, and most of them have no problem
understanding most of it; rather they know what it means and this is
sufficient to be guided by the Qur'aan.

Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

With regard
to the saheeh reports which say that they differed concerning it and held
conflicting views, these are very few compared to the verses concerning
which they did not differ. End quote.

Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 5/162

Secondly:

Most of the
differences that did occur came after the best (earliest) centuries. As for
the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, the differences among them concerning the
interpretation of the Qur'aan were very few.

Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Hence the
disagreements among the Sahaabah concerning the interpretation of the
Qur'aan were very few. Even though there were more disagreements among the
Taabi’een than among the Sahaabah, they are still few in comparison to what
came after them. The more virtuous the era, the more consensus, harmony,
knowledge and clarity about the Qur’aan there was. End quote.

Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 13/332.

Thirdly:

As for the
few verses concerning the interpretation of which there was a difference of
opinion (among the Salaf), they may be divided into several categories:

(i)
Those concerning which the
difference has to do with variations of meanings, not conflicting opinions.
So these are differences in wording, which do not affect anything and a
difference in wording is not really a difference in fact, because if there
is a difference the two opinions should contradict one another, and that is
not the case in this category of differences.

The first
type is where each of the commentators expressed what the words mean in
wording different from that of his companions, which indicates that what is
meant is a different shade of meaning, not a different meaning altogether,
as they are referring to the same thing. This is like referring to a sayf
(sword) as saarim or muhannad (other Arabic words for sword). The same is
true of the beautiful names of Allah, the names of His Messenger (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) and the names of the Qur'aan. The names of
Allah all refer to the same One, and each of His names refer to the same
Essence and the attribute reflected in the name. The same may be said of the
names of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), such as
Muhammad, Ahmad, al-Maahi (the Eraser, by means of whom Allaah erases
(yamhu) kufr), al-Haashir (the Gatherer, at whose feet the people will
gather), and al-‘Aaqib (the successor, i.e., the one who succeeds the other
Prophets in bringing about good, or the Last Prophet); and of the names of
the Qur'aan, such as the Qur’aan, al-Furqaan (the Criterion), al-Huda
wa’l-Shifa (guidance and healing), al-Bayaan (clarity), al-Kitaab (Book) and
so on.

Once this is
established, one of the early generation sometimes referred to a thing with
a word or phrase that referred to one of its attributes, and another would
refer to it by a different word or phrase that reflected another of its
attributes, like one who says: Ahmad [i.e., the Prophet (blessings and peace
of Allah be upon him)] is al-Haashir, al-Maahi, al-‘Aaqib; and al-Quddoos
(the Most Holy) is al-Ghafoor (The Oft Forgiving), al-Raheem (the Most
Merciful). In other words, what is referred to is one and the same, but the
attributes are not the same. It is known that this is not a contradiction as
some people think.

Another
example of that is their interpretation of the phrase al-siraat al-mustaqeem
(the straight path).

Some of them
said that it means the Qur'aan, i.e., following it.

Some of them
said that it means Islam.

These two
opinions are in harmony, because the religion of Islam is following the
Qur'aan, but each one highlights a different shade of meaning that is not
reflected in the other.

The word
siraat (path) may also indicate another meaning, as reflected in the view of
those who say that it is al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (i.e., adhering to the
Sunnah and the main body of the Muslims); and those who say that it is
obedience to Allah and His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him), and other examples, all of which indicate the same thing, but each
looks at it from a different angle.

The second
type is where the Qur'aan uses a general word and each commentator mentions
some specific type by way of example, in order to explain to the listeners
the general meaning.

That is like
when a non-Arab asks what is meant by the word khubz (bread), and someone
shows him a loaf of bread (ragheef) and says, “This”, although the word does
not refer to this specific type or this particular loaf.

Another
example is what is narrated concerning the verse in which Allah says
(interpretation of the meaning): “Then We gave the Book (the Qur’aan) as
inheritance to such of Our slaves whom We chose (the followers of Muhammad
صلى الله عليه وسلم). Then of them are
some who wrong their ownselves, and of them are some who follow a middle
course, and of them are some who are, by Allaah’s Leave, foremost in good
deeds” [Faatir 35:32]. It is well known that the phrase “those who wrong
their own selves” includes one who neglects the obligation of Islam and one
who transgresses the sacred limits, and the phrase “those who follow a
middle course” includes the one who fulfils the obligations of Islam and
refrains from haraam things, and the phrase “those who are foremost in good
deeds” includes the one who goes ahead and draws close to Allah by means of
naafil good deeds in addition to obligatory duties.

Moreover
each of the commentators may mention different types of acts of worship
(sc.) when commenting on this verse:

One may say
that the one who is foremost in doing good deeds is the one who prays at the
beginning of the time for the prayer, the one who follows a middle course is
the one who prays within the period for that prayer, and the one who wrongs
himself is the one who delays praying ‘Asr until the sun has turned yellow
[i.e., close to sunset].

Another
commentator may say that the one who is foremost in doing good deeds and the
one who follows a middle course and the one who wrongs himself are the ones
who are mentioned at the end of Soorat al-Baqarah, where it describes the
doer of good as the one who gives charity, the one who wrongs himself as
someone who consumes riba, and the one who follows a middle path as being
the one who is honest his dealings.

Each
interpretation refers to some qualities that come under the meaning
mentioned in the verse so as to tell the listener that this is included in
the meaning of the verse and to point to another shade of meaning.
Explaining by giving examples is much easier than speaking in general terms,
and the sound mind will understand that the example given refers to
something more general, just as the one who is shown a loaf of bread and is
told that this is called bread (khubz) understands that this word
refers to bread in general and not just this particular loaf. End quote.

Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 13/332-338

He also said
(may Allah have mercy on him):

It should be
noted that the differences that arose among the commentators are of two
types:

The first
type is those in which there is no contradiction, rather each view may be
correct and it is no more than a variation in the shades of meaning or
describing the same meaning from different perspectives. In most cases the
differences that are proven to be from the commentators among the early
generations, the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, are of this type. When Allah
mentions something in the Qur'aan, such as the verse in which He says
(interpretation of the meaning): “Guide us to the Straight Way (al-siraat
al-mustaqeem)” [al-Faatihah 1:6], each of the commentators explained the
straight path with a phrase which is indicative of some of its meaning or
attributes, and all of that is true. So some of them said that the straight
path means the Book of Allah or following the Book of Allah. Another said
that the straight path means Islam, or the religion of Islam. Another said
that the straight path means the Sunnah and the main body of the Muslims
(al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah). Another said that the straight path means the way
of complete servitude to Allah (‘uboodiyyah) or the way of hope and fear,
love of Allah, or obeying commands and heeding prohibitions, following the
Qur'aan and Sunnah, striving to obey Allah and other words and phrases.

It is known
that what is referred to is one and that there are variations in attributes
and wording.

And there is
another type, in which the commentator explained the meaning by giving an
example without wanting to limit the meaning to the example he gave, such as
when a foreigner says what does “bread” mean? And he is shown a piece of
bread. End quote.

Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 13/381-384

The second
type is verses in which the differences concerning the interpretation are
opposite or contradictory. This is very rare and applies to only a few
verses; these differences are well known and limited.

Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Differences
concerning tafseer among the salaf are very rare; their differences
concerning rulings are more common than their differences concerning
tafseer. Most of the saheeh reports which speak of their differences have to
do with variations on shades of meaning, not contradictory opinions. End
quote.

Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 13/178

There are
many reasons for these differences and they have been studied by specialised
scholars. The reader may consult Asbaab Ikhtilaaf al-Mufassireen by
Prof. Dr. Muhammad al-Shaayi’ and Ikhtilaaf al-Mufassireen Asbaabuhu wa
Athaaruhu by Prof. Dr. Sa’ood al-Funaysaan.

Fourthly:

This second
type should not be a reason for doubting the validity of the Qur'aan for a
number of reasons:

1-
It does not occur concerning
any the verses that have to do with beliefs or the aims of Sharee’ah; rather
it only occurs concerning the verses on rulings, such as the difference of
opinion among the scholars on meaning of the verse (interpretation of the
meaning): “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for
three menstrual periods” [al-Baqarah 2:228]: does al-qar’ (translated
here as menstrual period) refer to purity or menses? Or it may occur in the
commentary on some Qur’aanic contexts that have to do with stories or
exhortation and the like, such as their difference of opinion on the meaning
of the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “Then [the babe ‘Eesa
(Jesus) or Jibreel (Gabriel)] cried unto her from below her, saying: “Grieve
not: your Lord has provided a water stream under you” [Maryam 19:24]. --
is the one who called out Jibreel or ‘Eesa (peace be upon them both)? This
difference of opinion -- as you can see -- does not have to do with the
essence of belief or sharee’ah; rather it is a fiqhi matter in which Allah
willed that some differences should occur out of mercy towards this ummah
and also as a test; or it is a difference that does not affect the general
meaning of the verse.

2-
These differences -- although
they are very rare -- mostly occurred among the later generations. If we go
back to the tafseer of the early generations, the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, we
would not find most of these differences that are found in later books of
tafseer.

3-
Finally, there is wisdom in the
fact that the meaning of some verses is not quite clear, so that people will
strive hard and there will be discussion of these verses and knowledge in
books and people's minds.

Fifthly

With regard
to the claim that there is no contradiction in the Gospel or in the
commentaries on the Gospel, this is very strange and weird. The Christians
themselves make no such claim, because it is contrary to reality, as the
copies, variations and translations of the Gospel differ a great deal and
contradict one another. The Christians also have a lot of different branches
and religious differences, and the differences in interpretation of the
Gospel have to do with the foundations of their beliefs and the meaning of
the Trinity, Divine Oneness and the three Persons (of the Trinity). This is
a contradiction that led to the emergence of many branches which differ
concerning the essence of faith and religion. But in the case of Islam and
the Qur'aan, among the scholars of Islam of Ahl al-Sunnah (the Sunnis), who
formed the majority of Muslims, from the time of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een
until the present day, there are no differences concerning the basic
foundations of the faith and its major teachings.

Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The
Christians' commentaries on their holy books contain distortions of the book
of Allah and misinterpretation of the names of Allah and His Signs; it would
take too long to describe them but you can never cease to be amazed by them.
End quote.

Al-Jawaab
al-Saheeh, 3/93

He also
said:

The
Christians affirm that this phrase in the Gospel is taken from the Messiah
but they differ as to the meaning of these words. Many of them say that the
Father is existence and the Son is the Word and the Holy Spirit is life.
Some of them say: Rather the Father is existence, the Son is the Word and
the Holy Spirit is Power. And some of them say that the three Persons (of
the Trinity) are: Generous, Wise and Able. So they say that the Father is
generous, the Son is wise and the Holy Spirit is able. They claimed that all
divine attributes are included in these three. I have seen all of that in
the books of the Christians. And there are some who explain the Word as
meaning knowledge, and some who say that it is self-sufficient, living and
wise. They are all agreed that what is incarnated in Jesus is the
incarnation of the word, and he is the one whom they call the Son, not the
Father. Those who deny the incarnation, such as the Arians, say that Christ
(peace be upon him) was a servant who was sent, like all the Messengers
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon them). Although they agreed with them
on using the terminology Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they did not interpret
it as their opponents did as referring to incarnation. Similarly, the
Nestorians also agreed with them on this terminology, but they differed with
them concerning the incarnation in which the Jacobites and Melkites
believe.

And thus
they agreed on the wording but differed on the meaning. It is known that
they believed in this wording as part of their religion, because they
believe it is mentioned in their religion. But then they differed after that
concerning the interpretation of the Book as they and all the followers of
different religions differed concerning the interpretation of some words
that they believed were transmitted from the Prophets (peace be upon them).
End quote.